Conference champions games

[TD_6082]

Clemson far bigger and more talented at every position. A roster full of 4 stars will beat a roster full of 2 stars nearly every time. See IU vs OSU for further reference.

There might have been some difference in talent, but it wasn't all that much. I thought the key to the game was the play of Klubnik in the first half. He was deadly accurate early in that game, despite taking some hits. He came back down to earth as the game wore on. SMU played a much cleaner 2nd half except for the drops.

 

[thebadby2]

And let’s play that out
You can’t stop this team - so best you can do is extend to double OT
Now how is winning determined then after TDs?

Once a game goes to OT, it’s anyone’s to win or lose. You know that. If you put yourself in a position to win or lose a championship game in regulation on a less than 50% bet on one play, and you lose, was that a smart play?

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

Penn State's defense is holding them back. I've been surprised by the PSU offense tonight.

Put in Anth!

 

[thebadby2]

There might have been some difference in talent, but it wasn't all that much. I thought the key to the game was the play of Klubnik in the first half. He was deadly accurate early in that game, despite taking some hits. He came back down to earth as the game wore on. SMU played a much cleaner 2nd half except for the drops.

That’s a fair assessment. To me it looked like a team with better coaching and scheme losing narrowly to a team with better players. SMU stopped the run which was impressive. And Jennings is an X factor that Clemson didn’t have an answer for.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Math is math, but I think the decision comes down more to a matter of risk tolerance. In the case of this game, with PSU down 14 and to that point unable to stop Oregon from scoring, the safer play is to try to set up the tie at the end of the game and force overtime.

If you can't stop the other team, why on earth would you want to extend the game? That's exactly the situation when you should be going for two, when you think that if you get to overtime you aren't going to be able to stop the other guys from scoring two touchdowns.

 

[Burgh15]

Penn State has the best matchups.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Now saying this, I thought there was too much time left when PSU tried it. IMO, this strategy is best saved later in the game.

That's typically my problem with it. Don't chase the point too early. You should be chasing a point when you think that you are going to keep the other guys from scoring more. Because if you do it early in the game there's too much time for the other guys to score and make that point more meaningful.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Once a game goes to OT, it’s anyone’s to win or lose. You know that. If you put yourself in a position to win or lose a championship game in regulation on a less than 50% bet on one play, and you lose, was that a smart play?

If you, for example, think you have a 45% chance to make a two pointer and a 33% chance to win in overtime, they yeah, of course you should.

Overtime is most certainly not a 50-50 proposition. The favorite going into the game wins in overtime more often than they lose. If you are the underdog, especially a big underdog, you need to take that into account when deciding to go for two or not.